Contains junk from my college days to applying the Dilbert principle at work to theater to nostalgia to Jim Morrison to Schumi to friends to getting old and none the wiser, and more recently, Indian socio-political commentary: or, just blah blah and more blah

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Modi's Clean Chit Fantasy

It is a popular perception among Modi supporters that Modi has been given "clean chits" by the Supreme Court with regards to the action or, inaction in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
I will share four links from separate sources to clarify the point here that many want to wish away thus. clearing the moral decks for a Modi PM-ship.

The Chit Myth: On three occasions – one each in 2011, 2012 and 2013 – the Supreme Court of India has supposedly absolved Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat and the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in the upcoming elections, of culpability in Gujarat’s communal riots of 2002. But a case against Modi has never been registered in the Supreme Court. So how has the court given him a ‘clean chit’ without being asked to adjudicate the matter? And on what basis does Modi claim a clear conscience with regard to the 2002 violence in Gujarat?

The SIT: The Supreme Court in 2008 appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into nine riot cases, removing them from courts in Gujarat. A year later, the Supreme Court asked the SIT to investigate a criminal complaint against Modi, filed by Zakia Jafri in 2006. Modi’s three so-called ‘clean chits’ from the Supreme Court relate to this case.

Enter Amicus Curiae: When the SIT filed its interim report, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of asking an eminent advocate, Raju Ramchandran, who was already appointed as an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court), to assist in this critical case and visit Gujarat, independently assess the evidence generated and meet with witnesses directly.

First Strike: On 12 September 2011, after reviewing Ramchandran’s final report of July 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the SIT to further investigate in the light of the Amicus Curiae’s contrary findings and thereafter file a final report in front of a Magistrate. The fact that the Supreme Court was not going to monitor investigations any more led Modi to claim his first clean chit even though the SIT’s final report had yet to be filed at this stage. So there was clearly no question of a clean chit from anyone at this stage.

Second Strike and a Life: The conclusions drawn by the SIT in its final closure report filed on 8 February 2012 were not only different from those drawn by Ramachandran, but also from its own interim reports. In its watered down final report, the SIT concluded that there was not enough prosecutable evidence to bring charges against Modi. This led Modi and his supporters to make a new claim of having received a ‘clean chit’ by the SIT, a Supreme Court-appointed investigative body. True, but Ramachandran, who is also a court-appointed investigator, disagreed with the SIT’s conclusion.

The Conclusion: The Supreme Court's amicus curiae in the Zakia Jafri case concluded that
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi can be proceeded against for
various offences during the 2002 riots, including promoting enmity among
different groups.

The Sanjeev Bhatt Dichotomy: In his report, Mr. Ramachandran strongly disagreed with a key conclusion
of the R.K. Raghavan-led SIT: that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt was not
present at a late-night meeting of top Gujarat cops held at the Chief
Minister's residence in the wake of the February 27, 2002 Godhra
carnage.

It has been Mr. Bhatt's claim — made in an affidavit before the apex
court and in statements to the SIT and the amicus — that he was present
at the meeting where Mr. Modi allegedly said Hindus must be allowed to
carry out retaliatory violence against Muslims.

Mr. Ramachandran said there was no clinching material available in the
pre-trial stage to disbelieve Mr. Bhatt, whose claim could be tested
only in court. “Hence, it cannot be said, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt
should be disbelieved and no further proceedings should be taken
against Shri Modi.”

In his final report, the amicus, however, said: “The stage for believing
or disbelieving a witness arises after trial i.e. once the entire
evidence is placed before the court for its consideration. It would not
be correct to conclude, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be
completely disbelieved unless there is clinching material available to
the contrary…”

Further, “the question whether Shri Bhatt was present at the meeting ...
and whether Mr. Modi had indeed made such a statement, can only be
decided by a court of law ...”

The Legal Case: Amicus Curiae hasrecommended criminal prosecution against Modi under Sections
153A, 153B, 166 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),which call for
imprisonment of 1-3 years. Importantly, the former Additional Solicitor
General and senior Supreme Court lawyer has made these recommendations
based on the SIT’s own findings.

If followed, Ramachandran’s recommendations would have had an
unprecedented impact on the Indian criminal justice system, which often
sees the powerful being let off either because of sloppy probes or
dilatory legal proceedings. He first defined the relevant sections
applicable to Modi, laid down their legal scope and then cited several
SC case laws before emphatically concluding that Modi should be sent to
trial. His report demonstrates that the impediment in the course of
justice is neither lack of evidence nor lack of law. If anything, theproblem lies with a disturbingly selective application of law.

The Gulberg Massacre: Ramachandran has underlined the fact that the SIT itself had discovered
that the two senior officers in question — PB Gondia and MK Tandon — had
malevolently abandoned Meghani Nagar where Gulberg Society was situated
and instead got bogus FIRs of communal violence registered in other
areasthat were free of any kind of trouble. It was done to justify
their absence from Gulberg Society.

The SIT found in its probe that Tandon, who was the JCP, Sector 2,
Ahmedabad, deliberately didn’t respond to distress calls from Gulberg
Society, Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya, where some of the most gruesome
massacres were underway. Instead, he got bogus cases registered in other
parts of Ahmedabad to justify his presence and that of his police force
in those areas, rather than Gulberg and Naroda. The SIT also found that
Tandon and Gondia were in telephonic contact with Jaideep Patel and
Mayaben Kodnani, the architects of massacres at Naroda Gaon and Naroda
Patiya.

Book extracts from "The Fiction of Fact-Finding: Modi & Godhra" by Manoj Mitta

The Summons: When Narendra Modi visited the office of the SIT (Special Investigation
Team) in Gandhinagar on March 27, 2010, it was exactly 11 months after
the Supreme Court had directed it to “look into” a criminal complaint.
Modi’s visit in response to an SIT summons was a milestone in
accountability—at least in potential. It was the first time any chief
minister was being questioned by an investigating agency for his alleged
complicity in communal violence. The summons were on the complaint by
Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who had been
killed in the first of the post-Godhra massacres in 2002.

The SIT's Conclusion: This long-drawn-out but unusual exercise culminated on February 8, 2012
in a “final report” to a magisterial court in Ahmedabad exonerating Modi
and the rest of the accused persons of any of the criminal culpability
alleged by Jafri’s complaint.

The CrPC Non-Question: Such a conclusion was predestined, if not predetermined, for a variety
of reasons. Not least of those reasons was the manner in which the SIT’s
closure report relied implicitly on Modi’s testimony. This was despite
the fact that Modi’s statement had been perfunctorily recorded outside
the framework of the CrPC.The only time he appeared before the SIT was
when Jafri’s complaint was still in the phase of preliminary enq­uiry.His statement could therefore not be recorded under Section 161 CrPC,
the provision normally invoked to question any person “supposed to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”. Had he been
summoned during the “further investigation” too, Modi would have been
leg­ally obliged to speak the truth under Section 161 CrPC. The
provision stipulates that the person questioned “shall be bound to
answer truly all questions”, subject to the universally recognised right
against self-incrimination. That Modi was not put under such a legal
obligation “to answer truly all questions” was a curious omission.The
SIT ref­rained from summoning Modi even as it recorded fresh statements
under Section 161 of several other persons named as accused in Jafri’s
complaint.This led to the anomaly of the SIT’s final report to the
magistrate relying on the testimony given by Modi during the preliminary
enquiry, which was outside the scheme of the CrPC.

The Interrogation: The length of the interrogation was, however, out of proportion to its intensity. Although as many as 71 questions
were addressed to him, the transcript, bearing Modi’s signature on
every page, shows that Malhotra studiously refrained from challenging
any of his replies, however controversial. At no point did Malhotra make
the slightest effort to pin Modi down on any gaps and contradictions in
his testimony. Although the questions, culled from Jafri’s complaint,
were extensive, the SIT refrained from asking a single follow-up
question. It seemed as if Malhotra’s brief was more to place Modi’s
defence on record rather than to ferret out any inconsistency or
admission of wrongdoing.

The Gulberg Society Redux: In his testimony, Modi made out that he had no clue to any of the
violence at Gulberg Society, including Ehsan Jafri’s murder, till he was
told about it five hours later by the police. This is how the testimony
was actually recorded:

Malhotra: Did you receive any information about
an attack by a mob on Gulberg Society? If so, when and through whom?
What action did you take in the matter?Modi: To the best of my knowledge, I was
informed in the law and order review meeting held in the night about the
attack on Gulberg Society in Meghaninagar area and Naroda Patiya.

What was listed as Question No. 31 in Modi’s testimony actually had
three parts to it. The first was whether Modi had received any
information about the mob attack on Gulberg Society. Modi’s answer was
yes. The second part was when and through whom had he received the
information. Predictably, Modi indicated that he had been informed about
the massacre by the police. The surprise, however, lay in the time he
claimed to have been “informed” about the massacre. Modi said that it
was at the law and order meeting “held in the night”. In a different
context, while enumerating all the measures Modi had taken on February
28, the SIT’s 2012 report disclosed on page 256 that this law and order
meeting had taken place in Gandhinagar at 8.30 pm. So, linking the two
discrete pieces of information recorded by the SIT, my book for the
first time establishesthe precise time at which Modi claims to have
been informed about the Gulberg Society massacre. It was 8.30 pm, a
claim that strains credulity given the magnitude of the massacre which,
according to the SIT’s own findings, was exe­cuted right in Ahmedabad by
3.45 pm.By then, Gulberg Society had been, as the SIT report put it on
page 494, “set ablaze and lot of lives including that of Late Ehsan
Jafri had been lost”.Modi’s claim to have learnt about the massacre only at the 8.30 pm
meeting threw up a glaring and unexplained time lag. But the SIT neither
contested his claim during the interrogation nor discussed the
implications of his claim in its report.It tacitly accepted Modi’s
claim that he had no real-time information on the prolonged Gulberg
Society siege and massacre, stretching over eight hours. And even after
Joint Commissioner M.K. Tandon was said to have intervened in the
Gulberg Society massacre around 4 pm, Modi remained out of the loop for
nearly five hours, till the news was apparently broken to him at the
8.30 pm meeting. As a corollary, insofar as the SIT was concerned, the
third part of its Question No. 31, asking what action Modi had taken in
the matter, was rendered inconsequential. Since he somehow remained in
the dark during all those crucial hours when he could have made a
difference, there was no question of holding Modi to account for the
Gulberg Society massacre, or so went the SIT’s line of reasoning.Strong Governance: In the sequence of events reconstructed by the SIT, one such meeting
was held by Modi in Gandhinagar at 1 pm on February 28, when things were
coming to a boil in Gulberg Society. Joint Commissioner Tandon had
already made a brief visit to Gulberg Society around 11.30 am, when he
ordered the “striking force” accompanying him to burst teargas shells to
disperse “a mob of around 1,000 Hindu rioters”. Further, at 12.20 pm,
the police control room received a message from the Meghaninagar police
station asking for reinforcements as the mob, which had regrouped at
Gulberg Society and grown to 10,000-strong, was indulging in
stone-pelting and arson.How could none of these details about the escalating crisis in
Gulberg Society have been brought to Modi’s notice in the law and order
review meeting he had at 1 pm? Modi’s claim to have been unaware of the
Naroda Patiya violence as well, at the end of that meeting, is even more
puzzling. This is because by then, at 12.30 pm, the police had, for the
first time in the context of the post-Godhra massacres, imposed a
curfew in the jurisdiction of the Naroda police station.Even if it
proved to be ineffective, the very imposition of the curfew signified
that the administration had taken cognizance of the gravity of the
situation.The Moral: The moral of the story is clear. When the right questions are not put,
there will be neither the right evidence nor the right conclusions.